Plenary, 24 Feb 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, February 24, 2000

Official Report 696KB pdf

---

Local Government Act 1986 (Section 2A)

The next item of business is a statement by the First Minister on repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986. The First Minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions during it.

I wish to make a statement about the repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 and about the proposed ethical standards in public life etc (Scotland) bill.

I start by reminding the chamber of the history. The Scottish Executive is committed to building a modern, forward-looking society, in which people can live together freely in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect. With that objective in mind, the Executive made an announcement in September last year setting out our intention to repeal a piece of legislation that undeniably singles out a minority in our community for stigma, isolation and fear. That was followed by a consultation exercise launched in November, which revealed both concern about the continued place on the statute book of section 2A and very broad-based support for the Executive's proposal to repeal it.

More than 80 per cent of those who responded backed repeal. That was particularly true of the bodies representing the teaching profession, with both the Educational Institute of Scotland and the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association arguing for repeal. Children's bodies—NCH Action for Children, Save the Children and Children in Scotland—the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and 12 of the 16 councils that responded also gave their support to repeal.

The Executive decided to proceed. We take the view that section 2A has the effect of discriminating and is widely seen as encouraging prejudice. It is also clear that it inhibits and complicates the attempts of teachers to help and counsel pupils who are confused about their sexuality. It may in some cases make it more difficult to deal with cases of homophobic bullying, which—sadly—do occur. Our conviction—and this is at the centre of our case—is that section 2A does not offer real safeguards for children. Those lie with the professionalism of teachers, the guidelines that are already in place and, above all, the involvement of school boards and, of course, individual parents.

I want to make it very clear at the outset that nothing has led me or my colleagues to change our mind. We are united in our determination to repeal section 2A; we believe that repeal is right and necessary. Colleagues will recall that, on a Conservative motion, this Parliament expressed a view in favour of repeal by 88 votes to 17, with—to be precise—three abstentions. I recognise that that is not necessarily a final judgment in every case, as the process of legislation and the consultation process on safeguards have still to be gone through. However, Parliament clearly took the view in principle that it would be wrong to allow section 2A to remain on the statute book. That is very definitively the Executive's position.

I want to stress that no one in the extensive debate has argued for the promotion of homosexuality. The Executive does not, and would not, tolerate such a policy. It will be within the knowledge of members that inappropriate teaching did not occur before the arrival of section 28 and has not occurred since its introduction in 1988. It will not happen in the future.

Sam Galbraith has written to chairs of school boards and head teachers to explain the package of safeguards that will be introduced to ensure that, after repeal, children continue to receive appropriate sex education and advice on personal development. The package—which is, I believe, a strong one—comprises clear guidance to local authorities in the form of a circular; advance consultation with parents by individual schools when planning sex education, which is particularly important; simple, direct procedures for parents to raise any concerns with their child's school, and if necessary, the education authority; and a review of the curriculum advice and supporting materials for schools and teachers by a broadly based independent working group whose findings will be available before final decisions are taken in this chamber. That circular will underline our assurance and will accompany the bill, which will be published shortly.

There has been a great deal of comment and speculation about further legislative proposals. There has—to put it bluntly—been enormous pressure crowding in on every side. I want to make it clear that I have no wish to introduce declaratory legislation or to proceed on the basis of gesture politics. That would do no service to rational debate—I fear that, on occasion, rational debate on this matter has been at a premium.

We intend to introduce a new section that lays a duty on local authorities, when delivering services that relate principally to children, to have regard to the value of stable family life and to the need to ensure that the content of instruction that is given in the performance of those functions is appropriate and has regard to each child's age, understanding and stage of development. We are taking a positive, child-centred approach and are reinforcing the basic principle that all concerned should act in the best interests of each child. In the case of any challenge under the terms of the new section, exactly the same civil remedies will apply as do under section 2A.

I recognise that there is always controversy in areas that are as sensitive as this. I recognise that some of my Liberal Democrat colleagues take the view that there is no need for further legislative action because safeguards are in place and that to repeal simpliciter is enough. I do not share that view and I hope that our proposition has got the balance right.

I have no doubt that some will cry surrender and others will bitterly complain that the proposals do not go far enough. I do not think that the first claim stands examination and the second—I say this with no malice—is the position of those who are committed to no change in the present position. Our new provision is a sensible buttressing of local government's duty of care and a practical support for the decent, sensitive regime that has been the rule in our schools and in the delivery of local government services to children over many years.

We are now proposing that, as well as repealing section 2A, legislation should contain provisions for a further definition of our general approach, which, I believe, is shared by many in the chamber and in the country. I stress that that does not mean the introduction of statutory guidelines, which have never been a feature of our educational system. Statutory guidelines would subject schools and teachers to central control in a way that would be unacceptable to the broad sweep of educational opinion in Scotland.

This is not a U-turn or a retreat from our known position; indeed it is a clearer statement of that position. I believe that it is a sensible statement of common principles. We are taking our arguments from general debate and current practice to a place on the face of the bill. The words that we propose to put into statute are inclusive, tolerant and non-judgmental. They are, I believe, a proper statement of mainstream public opinion, reflecting our traditions and mores.

I recognise that there will be continuing debate in committee, in the chamber and in the country. I advance these propositions because I believe that they will more completely represent in the ethical standards bill the views of those of us who are committed to the repeal of section 2A. In our approach to these most sensitive areas of social and educational policy, we must retain a balanced approach that reflects our hopes for society. I see this as support for the efforts of teachers and parents and a reminder that we will never betray the trust that we owe to our children.

Will the First Minister consider what lessons, if any, the Executive has learned from the process of advancing this legislation? From the outside, the decision-making process seems to have been shambolic. Two weeks ago the Executive rejected an amendment seeking a debate on the status of guidelines. Given that that debate seems to have been going on in his Cabinet and parliamentary group, is it not reasonable to expect that it should be part of the consultative process on the guidelines?

Has the First Minister seen the letter in today's The Herald from Judith Gillespie, a highly respected figure in Scottish education? She explains how, in the current education bill, it would be possible to provide a statutory anchor to guidelines without introducing a national curriculum. Does the First Minister consider that suggestion worthy of consideration alongside the Government's latest position?

Those points are interesting and no doubt will continue to be discussed. I recognise Judith Gillespie's position and her right to contribute to the debate; indeed, I welcome that. However, I do not agree with the point that she makes. The Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill, particularly sections 3 to 7, deals with standards and the duty on education authorities in terms of procedures and mechanisms, but we are now in a very different field, albeit one that is equally important and sensitive.

I say to Alex Salmond—and I do not say it as sniping—that I am not clear where the SNP stands. We are opposed to statutory guidelines for the reasons that I gave in my statement—they would inhibit the right of teachers to exercise their professional judgment, which the vast majority do in an excellent way, and they would bring inflexibility into education. I gather from the press—I say this tentatively, as I think that we would all agree that that is not always the best way of getting exact information—that the SNP is thinking about going down the statutory guidelines route. Although it may be difficult for Alex Salmond to clarify that at the moment, it is important that he does so.

Given that the First Minister is so certain that section 28, or 2A, must be reinvented in order to assuage public opinion and parental concern, and given that he said in his statement that he and his colleagues did not wish to promote homosexuality in our schools, will he give us a clear statement on why it is necessary to repeal section 28 or 2A in the first place?

Secondly, I note that Mr Galbraith is now writing to all school boards in Scotland. It would have been helpful if Mr Galbraith had got his pencil out earlier and written to them as part of the consultation exercise that the First Minister called in aid of his proposals. If Mr Galbraith had consulted all the school boards in the first place, he would have got a very different answer from Scottish parents than the ones that he got from the rigged consultation exercise.

For example, the First Minister and the Minister for Children and Education might have learned something from the school boards of East Dunbartonshire and the parents whom the Minister for Children and Education represents in this Parliament, who have now been consulted by East Dunbartonshire Council. Twenty-two of them responded: 18 were in favour of retaining the section and only four were in favour of its repeal. Does that not indicate that the First Minister and the Minister for Children and Education are out of touch with parental opinion on this subject?

Thirdly, may I remind the First Minister that the bill is meant to be about ethical standards in public life? Is not the benefits fraud scandal in Glasgow City Council that was revealed today the sort of disgraceful conduct that should be tackled in a bill about ethical standards in local government? That would be better than tacking on to it the irrelevance of the repeal of section 28. Fourthly—

No more!

Order. Mr McLetchie—

There are lots of questions to be answered.

Mr McLetchie, in fairness, this is a very limited time for questions. You have had three questions already.

Could I conclude with one short fourth one?

No more!

More!

One quick one.

As the new section—the new 2A, or whatever it is to be designated—will refer to the value of stable family life, will the First Minister explain why it will not refer to the institution of marriage?

It refers to stable family life; I regard that as an inclusive term, which of course includes marriage. Marriage is an important part of the mix that we have in our society.

Unless David McLetchie has a very odd circle of friends, I suspect that, if he were to look around him, he would see that many people have made arrangements that are right for them. I said in my statement that I did not believe that the legislation should be judgmental. That is important and so I am glad to propose the new section on an inclusive and non-judgmental basis.

It is no good talking in hyperbolic language about rigged consultation. The consultation document was widely circulated. I think that Mr McLetchie's remark will be rather resented, whether by the EIS, the SSTA, the local government units or the wide range of children's organisations that responded. It is not helpful to conduct the argument on that basis. I am not familiar with the figures that he cited on East Dunbartonshire Council, but I can say that we must consider carefully the information that is available.

The real point—it is my last point, Sir David, as I know that other people want to speak—is that the section that we are proposing endorses the need for good practice in the teaching of our children in all aspects of the curriculum, including religious education and personal development. It puts the child at the centre of our concerns and is an important buttress to the general duties of local authorities. I think that it will be widely welcomed, and I hope that David McLetchie will pay attention to the organisations that welcome it.

Does the First Minister agree that this addition will give reassurance to those reasonable parents whose concerns have been raised by the flood of misinformation that has been promoted in recent months, and that it complements all the other measures that he has outlined?

I am grateful to Nora Radcliffe for those comments. It is important that this is not the only safeguard that is in place; indeed, it is far from the only safeguard that is place. I put particular emphasis on the circular on the McCabe committee, which is considering educational material and other matters. There is a series of safeguards, which I hope will reassure anyone who has worries that there is no need for concern and that we will continue to take the tolerant, inclusive, sensible and sensitive approach that has been the mark of education in Scotland.

Arguments may be advanced and people have a right to advance them if they so wish. My appeal, however—and I know that this may be difficult—is that, whatever the arguments, we should not try to persuade people on the basis of fears that have no real foundation.

Does the first minister acknowledge the anxieties that have been created in the minds of parents about inappropriate lessons in Scottish schools? Does he agree that the protection of children should be at the top of the political agenda and that no one party has a monopoly on the protection of children? Can he assure me that his statement will give confidence to the parents of Scotland that there will be proper education in schools and that there will be an end to the scaremongering and misinformation that has created much unnecessary anxiety?

I can certainly give those assurances. It is important to get the message across sensibly and coherently. I meet people who say to me, "Because of what you are proposing, the following will happen." The following turns out to be things that I do not think anyone in this chamber would suggest for a moment would happen, such as the open availability of internet pornography in school classrooms. To suggest that would be to take a view of teachers, education authorities, head teachers and parents that I do not think can be justified.

I want a rational debate on this subject. I have used the word "rational" several times this afternoon. If this Parliament is about anything, it ought to be about rationality. If we can keep our discussions rational, we will make better progress for Scotland as a whole.

The First Minister said that the points raised by Mr Salmond will continue to be debated. Does he agree that, rather than having a debate that takes place behind the closed doors of the Cabinet room, we should have one in which the Scottish public are fully involved? Does he also agree that that approach could help to take the heat out of this debate as we move towards the repeal of section 2A—a move that is supported by the SNP? Will he reply to Mr Salmond's question on whether he considers that the formulation that is offered in section 12 of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill—a bill proposed by his Executive—is at least worthy of consideration? That formulation would not lead to enshrining guidelines in statute, but it would give a statutory anchor to those guidelines and reassure the Scottish public without undermining our distinctive education system.

I would not like to rush to an answer, because I do not have section 12 in front of me and it would be wrong of me to pretend that I am totally conversant with it. I can say that it is difficult to have a statutory anchor and avoid statutory guidelines. We have taken a lot of advice on this matter. We are assured that ours is the most sensible and flexible way of achieving our ends and that what we propose will be widely welcomed.

Of course, there will be a lot of debate. When the bill is in committee and when it comes before this chamber, the matters that have been raised can be debated. I look forward to those exchanges, and if they are at the level of Nicola Sturgeon's contribution, we will get on well. I thank Nicola Sturgeon for reminding us of her party's commitment to the repeal of section 2A.

Does the First Minister agree that the vast body of mainstream Scottish opinion needs to know that the Executive is prepared to listen to it? Does he also agree that his statement today proves that the Scottish Executive has listened to public opinion on this issue and has provided reassurance when that reassurance was called for?

I hope that that is so. I have been attacked extensively in the public prints over the fact that there has been a debate within the Administration, and between the groups within the Administration, about the right balance on this issue. I do not apologise for that. The issue is a difficult one. Of course there were worries that, by moving down the road of further reassuring legislation, we might put ourselves in a position where we were eliding our main intent, which is to take from our midst a piece of statutory enactment that is seen by many of our fellow citizens as offensive and that we believe to be of very little value—in fact, no value—in educational terms. There was a debate, but we have come up with a good and right solution, which I will be happy to recommend to this chamber and whose virtues I will explain in the country. I am grateful to Michael McMahon for his support.

Does the First Minister concede that his statement represents a patch-up of section 2A, and attempts, but will fail, to solve the problems identified by Labour canvassers in the Ayr by-election? Does he feel embarrassed that his endeavours plunge some way towards the depths of Alex Salmond's cynical attempt to abandon this sinking-ship policy? How will he explain to the Labour candidate in the Ayr by-election why he has left her, and her council colleagues, in the lurch, given the Executive's decision to go for full repeal of section 2A?

The word that always occurs to me when listening to Mr Gallie is "incorrigible". I can think of lots of other words, but perhaps I will whisper them to Mr McLetchie in the tea room. All parties will campaign hard in Ayr, but we do not write legislation on the basis of a by-election. I recognise that there are many issues of importance in Ayr; I have been there and I have found many of them. Mr Gallie's points may be a particular obsession of his, but they are not the basis on which we operate—I hope that he will accept that.

If Mr Gallie thinks—and there seemed to be a hint of this in what Mr McLetchie said—that the new section will be a substitute for section 2A, he is greatly mistaken, as he will discover when he looks at the new section more closely. We are going to repeal section 2A. We are going to bring in new provisions that will buttress the duty of care, reinforce and support the professionalism of teachers and, I hope, do something to ensure that the good practice that has been the mark of our schools will continue.

I welcome the statement, as what is now proposed embodies two principles: the absence of discrimination, which was present in section 2A—although the Conservatives will not recognise that—and child-centredness. The latter must be at the heart of the Government's policies, to ensure that children are not exposed to material that may be appropriate to adults, but not to them. That was the fear that many people expressed to me.

Does the First Minister agree that the new section will not only emphasise good care of children and good practice within the education sector, but support that practice in social work, youth work and every other area of a local authority's involvement with children? That means that the new section goes beyond the old section 2A. Does he also agree that the material circulated to MSPs by the Souter campaign—it was health promotion material designed to prevent the spread of HIV in adult homosexuals—would, if shown to children, constitute as much of an abuse of the child as showing that young child explicit heterosexual material?

We must all be careful about how we conduct this campaign if it is not to be misleading and if it is to reach balanced results.

I see the section as inclusive. It reflects the sentiments of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, in—as Richard Simpson said—putting the entire emphasis on concerns for the welfare of the child. He is right to point out that this issue is not confined to schools, but deals with local government services principally involved with children. That allows us to have a wider remit in terms of counselling and help in non-school settings. Those are positive advantages.

I say to Richard Simpson that there was—as I indicated openly—an interesting and important debate within our own ranks about the best way forward. He was one of those who played a constructive part in that debate.

Does the First Minister agree that this is an extremely sensitive matter? In the formulation of new duties incumbent on local authorities, it is essential that the wording is clear and precise. If it is not, the duties will be impossible for local authorities to implement or observe. Will he consider including a definition of the phrase "stable family life"—in the same way as definitions of the words "children" and "council" are included—so that parents can be granted the reassurance that many of us believe they seek?

I do not think that I can agree with Fergus Ewing on that point. If we took that view, we would get into great difficulties through the whole gamut of statute. I have said clearly that I regard the definition as inclusive. We are all aware of the range of different lifestyles in Scotland. I repeat: the section is non-judgmental. I agree with him about the sensitiveness of this issue and I recognise that he feels strongly about it, as was reflected in his abstention in the vote in Parliament. I hasten to say that that was not due to absence; it was a positive abstention. I recognise that that represented careful thought and probably some considerable pain and trouble on his part.

Does the First Minister agree that the wording of the suggested duties of councils section should take account of the views of groups—such as the Equality Network—that represent many of those who are subjected to the bullying and discrimination that sadly takes place throughout Scotland?

Does the First Minister also agree that we should not set a precedent on this issue? In discussing these issues and taking decisions on them, this Parliament must recognise that there is intolerance, prejudice and homophobia in our society, but we should take no more cognisance of the views of one individual who happens to be a multimillionaire and who can fund a campaign of opposition than we would of the views of other citizens with the same intolerance and prejudice. I hope that the minister will assure me that this is not a precedent and that we will not have multimillionaires running the agenda of the Parliament.

I accept the principle that any citizen of this country is entitled to enter into a debate and to progress his cause to the best of his ability. To take any other view, however deeply we may disagree with someone, would be quite wrong. I do not for a moment question the sincerity with which Brian Souter is conducting his campaign.

On Mr Sheridan's general point, of course the agenda in this chamber is set by the members of the Parliament and by the Executive. That will continue to be the case. I very much hope that the Equality Network and other bodies will take part in the debate. We have a long way to go. The bill will have to go through committee and there will be various stages on the floor of the chamber. I hope that everyone who has a real contribution to make, and wants to make it in a measured way, will do so. I have no doubt that that is the best way of proceeding in these matters. I would never want to fetter or impede that democratic process.

I welcome the First Minister's statement, which takes on board the real concerns of parents about the material that is used in our schools and how their children are taught, and puts the best interests of children at the heart of the agenda of this Parliament while building a tolerant Scotland.

Will the First Minister reaffirm the Parliament's faith and trust in our teachers' ability to teach our children about life as it is, with all its harshness and its difficulties, and all the situations that we may not always like to talk about? What impact will the new section and the guidelines outlined by Sam Galbraith have on our ability to teach our children about life as it really is?

I am grateful for Margaret Smith's welcome. The section will essentially be a buttress or support for the professionalism of teachers, which has stood us in good stead in the years gone by and I am sure will continue to do so in the years to come.

I recognise the need to introduce children to the real world. That has got to be done with skill and sensitivity if it is not to be counterproductive. I am confident about the way in which we are reinforcing the framework, not just with this section—if it gets on to the statute book—but with the circular, the guidelines and the rights of parents to withdraw children and to raise issues with schools. I particularly like the idea of consulting parents before sex education courses are put in place. All that is part of a whole, which will ensure that some of the fears that have been put about turn out to be groundless.